|
I happen to agree with the first comment below. I remember recently
watching two ladies looking at my work in the gallery. They liked what they saw
and while discussing some of the image’s attributes, one lady said “yeah but,
it’s probably been faked somehow,” and they walked off.
We have lost something important. And, like our privacy, fewer and fewer
people care.
Two books that may be of interest in terms of the original topic; “Why
People Photograph” by Robert Adams from Aperture and “dialogue with photography”
by Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper (lower case is intentional) from Corner House
Publications.
Gregory
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: Psychological Motives for Pursuing
Photography I totally disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not
your facts. Truth is fact. Truth is absolute. There is no gray
in truth. You may not like it, and you may wish it were different, but its
there none the less.
Now if you are creating art and the composition is perfect except for a
tree you do not like in the frame, if you change the composition to leave it out
is that the truth? Yes for that spot on the earth exists at that moment in
time. If you take the image from the original point and clone it out is
that the truth? No but for a print I am representing as art and not
documentary, I would have no problem doing that at all. A model shows up
with a big tattoo on her shoulder that disrupts the lines of her dress
flowing. There is a big difference in cloning out the tat from a gallery
print and cloning out the tat for an ID photo.
I don't believe it is that hard to show truth, but showing emotions is a
really tough assignment. Creating an emotional response to your work
in the viewer that is the response you intended is the ultimate measure of
success of an image.
|
